Larry's message prompted me to read some of the court briefs. One that caught my eye was the brief from Dr. Seuss Enterprises (doesn't that just scare you right there?), EB White's estate, and Ludwvis Bemelmans' estate.

Their argument is almost pathectically lame and masterful at the same time. It tugs on the heart strings, reminding the reader that great children's works are protected by copyright and can suffer when that protection goes away. You can get sucked in, *almost* to the point of missing their insane conclusion:

"Without extensive copyright laws, works, like "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" would never make their way into new mediums like movies, DVD and television"

WHAT!?!!? Have they never seen a Disney film? Snow White wasn't exactly under copyright when it became the biggest animated film of its era.

Sigh. Where's the Larry Flint of copyright law when you need him?

MBolton

Oh, but that's all right, because by the magical workings of "west coast code" (available now in a handy aerosol can!), everything will work out. With just a little help from the Invisible Hand. And the Easter Bunny.

We should start a technocratic political party with a presidential candidate.

we should wiley, and that candidate should be made up of five different colored cat shaped robots. Whenever trouble started, the robot cats could come together to form one giant humanoid robot, large enough to vanquish evil, or make a speech.

I disagree Wiley. Let's not fall in the Nadar trap. Let's just do some serious old-fashioned coalition-building by rallying our supporters, convincing our friends and potential allies, organizing a movement, and then making a heck of a ruckus in the media and halls of Congress. Civics 101. It's not rocket science, and there're no short cuts, but it works.

I agree with Lessig - there is no digital free speech movement: there's only a group of people with a conviction that digital free speech is right. That'll change, we'll change, or we'll lose.

woo woo! go larry!

Edited by author 08-21-2002 03:59 PM
I get the feeling that Dave and Doc got bent out of shape because the keynote speech pointed a finger back at the audience, and asked for action. I was taken aback, as everyone probably was. It was jarring yes, but truthful, and someone's got to say it: we're powerless in washington and we're doing nothing about it. We can only route around bad laws for so long before too many of us are in jail for it.

So Dave and Doc go off on software patents, as if that has anything at all to do with Napster, P2P, movie piracy, or music piracy. As if Napster and Kazaa would still be around and healthy if no one patented their software?

Now Dave's going half-cocked on protecting his work. First off, his software will be protected for at least 70 years, Larry is not the King and overlord of the USA. The laws aren't going to change much, even if Larry wins against Ashcroft in the fall.

Larry's ultimate vision is for limited runs of copyright, renewable for a fee. Dave certainly could keep his software copyrights for a substantial period of time if he wanted, but that's beside the point. The point is the chances that the US will adopt Larry's vision of copyright are a trillion to one. The entire Hollywood industry is pushing all their might against him to just lop 20 years off the copyright. We're not going to see a total rewrite of copyright law in our lifetime. My guess is that if anything changes from the 95 year copyright protection, it may go to 70 year, pre-Sonny Bono levels if it changes at all.

I guess I don't see the purpose of having a beef with someone's personal beliefs that will never become law.

Couldn't agree more, Alex. If you're/we're serious it's time to find or work to elect techno-issues-literate candidate and then SUPPORT THE HELL out of them when re-election time comes up. Donations to your favorite candidates are a first step--this process is not all about money yet, but money is really important.

Bucks for a professional lobbyist wouldn't hurt either.

But the best bang for your buck is coalition-building with people who are already lobbying for free speach.

Pat: I agree that supporting/ electing techno-literate and fiesty Congresspeople and hiring some professional lobbying would both be useful.

But in order for either of those things to happen, we need to build a real movement behind these issues. In my experience, the folks who care most passionately about these issues tend, well, let's just say we tend not to be joiners. Somehow, though, we've got to get our friends, colleagues and allies to realize that unless we start working together in an organized movement, we're going to lose. Period. As Mathowie said, we can only route around bad laws for so long.

What's exceptionally scary about these days is that the CTEA was written and put before the Senate in 2 months. It bypassed any floor rules of committee and was passed *unanimously*. It then bypassed Judiciary rules, went to the house and passed the same day.

Proponents: Disney was the largest, with the MPAA. Disney's CEO was even there for the vote.

Opponents: Some librarians.

As the Amici Curiae brief of the NYU law professors in support of the petitioner states:

"Most potential users of copyrighted works rarely appreciate that their speech will be curtailed in a generation or more by a presently enacted statutory expansion of the Copyright Act. Predictably, therefore, opposition to the CTEA was confined to a smattering of academics and librarians, whose job it is to consider remote and diffuse consequences of legislation."

We're facing ramrodded legislation with little opposition, and no opposition in the houses. The resources available to potentional judicial opposition is small compared to the resources of those fighting for greater copyright control.

The only amazing thing here is why large companies didn't figure this out before the 80s.

We need to fight, be loud, and organize. Being moderate in our response is like putting up a brick wall in the face of a swinging wrecking ball. It'll slow a bit...but just a bit. I'm amazed that "being political" is considered a radical notion by people with large public audiences. Radical is blowing yourself up. Radical is civil disobedience. Being aggressive with our political views and supporting organizations working *within the law* is not radical.

Care about this stuff? Join the EFF. They have a long track record of effective advocacy. Lessig is on the board.

Reading this debate reminds me of my favorite quote from Bruce Sterling's alternately thoughtful and loopy speech at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/6673

"When a crackdown comes, that isn't the end of the story. That's the start of a dissident's story."

I'll go you one further, Nelson.

While certainly we should all join EFF (and also the ACLU and CPSR, while we're at it), it's also important to get personally involved: volunteer our time and skills, write letters to the media and electeds, educate our friends and coleagues, go to benefits and rallies, you know, make our existance known.

Because, while much needed, our $65 contributions won't be enough to stem this tide. That's gonna take people showing up, and unfortunately we're the only ones who care enough to do that. There's us. That's all there is.

Hmmm....is the Winerlog covering this?

Edited by author 08-21-2002 08:50 PM
Just in case anyone here hasn't taken the time to listen to Lessig's OSCON speech, here's a link to it. It's accessible, passionate, and articulate -- miss it, and you're missing out. When the history books about the digital age are written, Lessig's going to play the Thomas Paine role, and this little speech will be "Common Sense".

BTW: You'll get the most out of it if you watch the Flash presentation. It's worth the 30 minutes.